Analogia Entis in a Monastic Vision: Thomas Merton’s Answer to the Modern World

Abstract

The idea of analogia entis has undergone a long intellectual development and gained unprecedented importance in the twentieth century with the elaboration of Przywara. It seems difficult to correlate the development of this classical theological idea with Thomas Merton (1915–1968). Nevertheless, in the face of the challenges of the modern world, Merton’s way of thinking resonates with many of the connotations of analogia entis as articulated by Przywara. This paper attempts to argue that Merton, in his late works, alludes to the metaphysics, epistemology, and, by extension, the methodology of inter-religious dialogue that analogia entis entails by elaborating on the ideas of natural contemplation, symbolism, and metaphysical intuition.

1. Introduction

The term analogy, which was employed in the ancient Greek metaphysical tradition and evolved along with the development of the work of Thomas Aquinas and his successors, occupied an important place in medieval theology and philosophy. In the 20th century, analogia entis gained unprecedented importance in controversies between modern philosophy and Christian theology after the notion’s development by Przywara. It seems difficult to correlate the development of this classical theological idea with Thomas Merton (1915–1968), an American monk who was not skilled in theological writing. Merton’s work does not use such terminus technicus, except for an early treatise on the concept of analogy.1 Nevertheless, in the face of the challenges of the modern world, Merton’s way of thinking resonates with many of the connotations of analogia entis as elaborated by Przywara. Analogia entis, as an ontological form articulating God in-and-beyond creation, criticizes all one-sided static theology and philosophy, and instead claims a dynamic two-way movement, that is, God’s presence in and beyond creation and creation’s desire for God. Creaturely being, as an unresolved suspended middle, is always in a rhythmic movement, rejecting all attempts to be fixed or objectified as essence or existence (Przywara 2014). This existential experience permeates most of Merton’s monastic life.

Merton entered the Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance (O.C.S.O.) on 10 December 1941 at the Abbey of our Lady of Gethsemani in Kentucky, USA, and died on the very same day in 1968. Most of Merton’s monastic life was nurtured by the Pre-Vatican II Church, and it is no surprise that his early thought was shaped by neo-scholasticism, embodying a relatively strong dualistic mentality of contemptus mundi. Beginning in the 1950s, however, Merton began to turn to the writings of the Church Fathers as a resource for his teaching. At the same time, Merton received the writings of a number of “ressourcement” theologians (Merton 1997, pp. 384–85, 389). Their attempts to break out of the neo-scholastic theological framework and their endeavors to retrace the early patristic thought helped Merton to reflect on his early education and set the tone for his later theological reflections. In addition to these avant-garde theologies, Merton’s privileged position as a celebrated author brought him into contact with intellectuals from all over the world, and in particular, after becoming the Master of Novice in 1955, he was exposed to a rich and varied range of intellectual resources. Merton first became interested in psychology, and then, in the summer of 1956, began to read Buddhist writings as well as the writings of Russian religious thinkers (especially those expelled from Russia by Lenin). All these readings and reflections bore ripe fruit in Merton’s works of the 1960s and are the subject of this paper. This paper attempts to argue that Merton, in his late works, alludes to the metaphysics, epistemology, and, by extension, the methodology of inter-religious dialogue that analogia entis entails by elaborating on the ideas of natural contemplation, symbolism, and metaphysical intuition. With the discussion of Merton’s case, the paper attempts to illustrate the idea of analogia entis in a monastic vision.

2. Natural Contemplation as Ontological Analogy: A Corrective to Neo-Scholasticism’s Anonymous Dualism

Merton’s later work is to some extent understood in the context of a correction of earlier thought. This requires us to devote a little space to the characterization of the neo-scholastic theology that influenced early Merton and what such a theology meant for Merton in a monastic context. The Catholic church at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries confronted a great challenge from post-Enlightenment rationalism and liberalism. Post-Kantian philosophy eliminated the ability of pure reason to know God, leading to two possible endpoints: first, the invention of a subject-based, immanent, moral religion and ultimately pantheism (whereby the world is essentially everything); and, second, the surrender of the theological discursiveness in favor of traditional fideism and ultimately theopanism (whereby God is or does essentially everything). In both directions, the tension between the infinite and the finite was collapsed into one or another form of identity. In order to avoid these two extremes, neo-scholasticism reasserted the ability of discursive reason and affirmed the two orders of knowledge: discursive reason can prove the existence of and some of the attributes of God through its own capacity without resorting to revelation; but the mysteries hidden in God will be revealed to man by faith. Each of these two orders has its own goal, and thus becomes a separate “two-tiered” system—the order of nature and the order of grace—which guarantees the ability of human natural reason to know God, but also reserves the territory for faith. However, the neo-scholastic approach of rationalist apologetics, which tried to answer the militant rationalists on the rationalist’s own terms, carried within it a secularist or atheistic logic, that is, a potential of breaking free from revelation. Such externalism has in fact implied a dualism in which the two are completely separated, where the supernatural order is viewed as a ‘top up’ for natural reason.2 When such a theological mindset is adopted into the monastic context, it results in the same two-tiered split structure: a complete separation between theology and spirituality/mysticism, active contemplation and infused contemplation, action and contemplation. The whole focus of the spiritual life, as Merton pointed out, is on the question “when did man cease to be himself the principal agent and yield this primacy to the Spirit of God?” (Merton 2003, p. 67). We can find Merton’s early work deeply involved in pondering and wrestling with these questions, which have already presupposed a clear dichotomy between the supernatural and the natural. It averts an interior connection between the deepest dynamism of human spirits and the supernatural revelation of God and ends up with the bitter fruit of a sterilized and barren mind.

In order to overcome the dualism that arises in spiritual life, Merton found a way out in the writings of the Church Fathers. Merton likewise avoids the extremes of pantheism and theopanism, retaining a basic tension between the supernatural and the natural order. But in Merton’s view, the issue was not the proper disposition of natural reason as neo-scholasticism understood, but a retrieval of a holistic vision based on the ontological relationship of God–cosmos–humanity that is implicit in the doctrine of creation.

In 1961 Merton gave a series of lectures for young priests on Christian mysticism that were later collected into a book titled An Introduction to Christian Mysticism (Merton 2008). The aim of the lectures was to restore the unity of theology and mysticism. The approach Merton used in the lectures was similar to that of the Communio theologians (Rowland 2017, pp. 96–97), which begins with the contemporary pastoral problem and then combs through the relevant scriptural exegesis and Patristic, medieval, and more contemporary writing on the topic to discuss how the two (theology and mysticism) evolved from unity to division, so as to reflect on and remedy the current problem of dualism.

Merton points out that the foundation of Christian mysticism was laid in St. John and St. Paul and became the source of the idea of theosis or divinization for Church Fathers. This foundation is the mystery of Christ’s incarnation and the recapitulation of all creatures in Christ, on which Christian theology and spirituality can become one (Merton 2008, pp. 38–42). This metaphysical framework of the Incarnation–Recapitulation, which is rendered at the beginning of the lecture series, lends an essential background for understanding the relationship between theology and spirituality. Citing Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958), Merton argues that the Fathers’ commitment to the doctrine of Incarnation was not a matter of intellectual enjoyment, but rather concerned with the divinization of the created world.

… the struggle of the Church to safeguard the purity of dogma in every age is at the same time a struggle to guarantee to each Christian free access to mystical union. St. Irenaeus against the Gnostics defended the very concept of deification as man’s last end. St. Athanasius, etc. against the Arians defend {the} divinity of {the} Word because {the} Word opens to us the way to deification…{Likewise} St. Cyril, etc. against {the} Nestorians, because Nestorianism separates {the} humanity and divinity in Christ; {the} Cappadocian Fathers against {the} Monophysites and Apollinarians, to show that the fullness of human nature has been united to God in the Word (“what has not been assumed is not saved”) …“In each case the central preoccupation is always one thing that is at stake: the possibility, the mode, or the means of union with God”.

(Merton 2008, p. 66)

According to Merton’s survey of the Church Fathers, the Incarnation is closely linked to the divinization of man and the restoration of all creatures. Furthermore, in his commentary on Maximus the Confessor’s (580–662) ‘Contemplation and the Universe’, Merton connects the Incarnation with the doctrine of creation in terms of natural contemplation, which suggests a metaphysical structure of God in-and-beyond creation. Merton begins his discussion with the epistemology of natural contemplation, and then proceeds to elaborate its ontological implication. Merton points out that natural contemplation (theoria physike) is “a contemplation according to nature (physis). It is also a contemplation of God in and through nature, in and through things He has created, in history. It is the multiformis sapientia, the gnosis that apprehends the wisdom and glory of God, especially His wisdom as Creator and Redeemer … Theoria physike {is thus the} reception of God’s revelation of Himself in creatures, in history, in Scripture.” (ibid., pp. 122–23). The ‘natural’ in theoria physike is not distinct from and opposed to the ‘supernatural’, where God is contemplated by the power of one’s own nature in the modern sense; rather, God is contemplated in nature (ibid., p. 125). In other words, the activity of natural contemplation presupposes the goodness of creation and the intimate relationship between the divine mystery and nature. As Merton quotes Maximus: “We must not believe that sin caused this unique masterpiece which is this visible world in which God manifests Himself by a silent revelation” (ibid., p. 123). Thus, Merton points out that natural contemplation is not only about epistemology, but also implies a metaphysics of the nature of creation.

The love of Christ hides itself mysteriously in the inner logoi of the created … totally and with all His plenitude … in all that is varied lies hidden He who is One and eternally identical; in all composite things, He who is simple and without parts; in those which have a beginning, He who has no beginning; in all the visible, He who is invisible.

(ibid., p. 124)

“The Word, {the} Logos, teaches us how the logoi are oriented to Him, how they are both in Him, and for Him. The logoi of things are in the Logos: they are created in the Logos. The logoi of things are then the Logos in things. “In every being there is a logos sophos kai technicos beyond our vision” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, In Hexaemeron, PG 44.73A). This is the theoteles logos: that in the thing which comes from God and goes to God. Theoria physike then demands that we enter into the movement of all things from God back to God; and it implies realization of the obstacle in the way of this movement placed in the world by philautia and sin, which makes things created by God serve our own immediate interests.

(ibid., p. 131)

Therefore, the patristic narrative of “incarnation–divinization” is more clearly developed in Maximus as a metaphysical structure of “creation–recapitulation”, so that creaturely being has a symbolic/sacramental nature that points to God.

Merton draws on the “creation–recapitulation” narrative implied in Maximus’s natural contemplation to bring out a tapestry of a participatory relationship between creation and the eternal Word of God. The incarnation of the Logos is both the foundation and the culmination of God’s creation, through which God is in-and-beyond creaturely being, and through which all creatures are ultimately restored to the mystery of God. Therein, the metaphysical relationship between God and creation is not an externalist static structure, but rather an inner participatory dynamic process that undergoes creation, salvation, and eschaton. The symbolic and sacramental function of creaturely being is not only a unique theological contribution of Maximus, but also a theological vision shared by the ancient Eastern Fathers. Merton concluded the first part of his lectures by following Maximus with the theology of Dionysius the Areopagite. It is worth noting that although historically, Maximus lived at a later time than Dionysius, Merton precedes Maximus’ idea of natural contemplation in order to provide a theological context for understanding Dionysius’ thought.

For Merton, “symbolic and sacramental theology, which corresponds to theoria physike” (ibid., p. 137) in Dionysius is a prerequisite for understanding his mystical theology. Merton further points out that after Dionysius there was a tendency to “go directly from the ascetic life to contemplation without forms, without passing through theoria physike, in the Middle Ages” (ibid., p. 137). It is with this in mind that Merton begins the second part of his discussion on how Dionysius’ thought faded from its symbolic theological/natural contemplation context in the medieval West and was received lopsidedly as an individual experience of transcendence. In Merton’s view, it is precisely because of the loss of the metaphysical structure of creation–recapitulation presupposed by the natural contemplation that spirituality lost its vision of communion with all creatures and shifted towards a kind of atomic individual practice, gradually becoming a specialized field and differentiating itself from theology. On the other hand, this specialized view of spirituality reinforced the distinction between active contemplation and infused contemplation developed in the Middle Ages, and unwittingly severed the relationship between nature and grace. Therefore, if we want to return to the original unity between theology and spirituality, between active contemplation and infused contemplation, we have to retrieve the theological vision of natural contemplation. As Merton points out, in the contemporary Western Catholic monastic context, the lack of ‘natural contemplation’ is one of the reasons that “accounts for the stunting of spiritual growth among our monks today” (ibid., p. 121). He said: “We must be restored first of all to this ‘natural’ contemplation of the cosmos before we can rise to perfect theologia” (ibid., p. 125).

By discussing the doctrine of creation implied in Maximus’ natural contemplation, Merton articulates the dynamic participatory relationship between God and the created world and breaks through the neo-scholastic anonymous dualism. The created world is the locus of God’s action, and there is no such thing as a purely natural order apart from God. God can be known through the created world, and in such experience, we intimate something of the transcendent declared within the immanent with a basic ‘in-and-beyond’ structure of the analogy of being. God’s love and wisdom radiate through all creatures and call them to fulfill their symbolic and sacramental mission in response to Him. The emphasis in this structure should be on a dynamic and participatory relationship, in contrast to neo-scholasticism’s external two-tiered relationship.

3. Symbolism as an Immanent Analogy: Dynamic Rhythm of Floating Existence

The participatory relationship of the Creator in-and-beyond creation implied in the Christian doctrine of creation is not only a corrective to neo-scholasticism within the Catholic church, but also an antidote to the problems arising from modern secularization. In the 1960s, when the U.S. was embroiled in various conflicts and violence at home and abroad (the arms race in the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, etc.), modern technological upgrades, instead of helping the world move toward peaceful cohesion, became a powerful leverage for the state to wage war. In the face of these cold facts, Merton had a basic observation: the fundamental problem of our time is one of spirituality; war is merely the outward expression of man’s inner spiritual confusion, emptiness, and violence. The roots of all this spiritual chaos lie in the way in which the nature of the world is perceived. In the essay ‘Symbolism: Communication or Communion?’ (Merton 2013, pp. 240–57) written in 1965, Merton discussed two ways of thinking about reality in the context of modern society, one is the ‘symbol–communion’ approach and the other is the ‘indicative sign–communication’ approach. In this regard, Merton attempts to give a diagnosis of the spiritual symptoms of modern society. Merton opens his essay with the following statement:

In dealing with symbolism one enters an area where reflection, synthesis, and contemplation are more important than investigation, analysis, and science. One cannot apprehend a symbol unless one is able to awaken, in one’s own being, the spiritual resonances which respond to the symbol not only as sign but as “sacrament” and “presence” … The true symbol does not merely point to some hidden object. It contains in itself a structure which in some way makes us aware of the inner meaning of life and of reality itself. A true symbol takes us to the center of the circle, not to another point on the circumference. A true symbol points to the very heart of all being, not to an incident in the flow of becoming.

(ibid., p. 241)

Here Merton points out that the ‘symbol’ as such rests on the ‘in-and-beyond’ structure of its nature, i.e., it already contains the ability to point to the spiritual reality. It is understood first and foremost as ‘sacrament’ and ‘presence’, as a witness to the real presence of the spiritual reality in space and time. By recognizing and understanding the symbols, one is able to comprehend, approach, and participate in the spiritual reality to which the symbols intrinsically refer. Therefore, “Appreciation of the symbol necessarily implies a certain view of reality itself, a certain cosmology and a religious metaphysic of being, above all a spiritual view of man. Symbols begin to have a living and creative significance only when man is understood to be a sacred being” (ibid., p. 250). Based on this assumption, “Symbolism strives to ‘bring together’ man, nature, and God in a living and sacred synthesis” (ibid., p. 244). From Merton’s discussion, we can find that the principle of transcendental orientation that symbolism bears is apparently predicated on the intrinsic participatory relationship between God and creation in the idea of natural contemplation. In such a relationship, the symbol is not an object for its own sake, which conveys information about another object, but as an object ultimately directed to a subject (ibid., pp. 252–53). The symbol “is a reminder that we are summoned to a deeper spiritual awareness, far beyond the level of subject and object” (ibid.). In this way, “the vital role of the symbol is precisely this: to express and to encourage man’s acceptance of his own center, his own ontological roots in a mystery of being that transcends his individual ego” (ibid., p. 248). In Merton’s view, the symbolic way of thinking presupposes the vertical participatory structure of transcendental reality and the cosmos. To contemplate a symbol means to incorporate the symbol into the subjective horizon of the transcendental reality and regard the symbol as a reminder pointing to transcendental reality. Thereby, the symbol and the transcendental reality share a communal character that transcends the subject and object.

In order to better understand the implications of the symbolic mindset, Merton contrasts it with the ‘indicative sign’. Merton points out that the function of the ‘indicative sign’ is the communication of factual or practical knowledge (ibid., p. 242). People can gain information outside the sign by using the “indicative sign”, but there is no inherent relationship between the facts referred to and the sign itself. The exclusive epistemological validity of the ‘indicative sign’ can point to any information and things other than the sign, but without a definite common center and target. The meaning of its reference is arbitrary and comes from social and cultural conventions. Therefore, it only functions as a means of conveyance and communication. In other words, the ‘indicative sign’ mindset does not presuppose an intrinsic relationship between the universe and a certain spiritual reality. The sign and the referent are in a horizontal relationship between subject and object. Even in religion, if we regard doctrinal theology as mere signs rather than symbols, then they merely convey information about beliefs that are external to oneself. In contrast, “a symbol is, then, not simply an indicative sign conveying information about a religious object, a revelation, a theological truth, a mystery of faith. It is an embodiment of that truth, a ‘sacrament’; by which one participates in the religious presence of the saving and illuminating One” (ibid., p. 253).

Having distinguished between the two ways of thinking, Merton is deeply worried about the fact that the symbolic way of knowing is largely disregarded and threatened in modern technological society, which means that people have lost the ability to understand the visible and the invisible as a meaningful unity. What follows is the spiritual degeneration of modern human society. (ibid., pp. 241–42) “Since it is by symbolism that man is spiritually and consciously in contact with his own deepest self, with other men, and with God, then both the ‘death of God’ and the ‘death of man’ are to be accounted for by the fact that symbolism is dead” (ibid.). When technology is conflated with civilization, there is no “experience plus”, or superabundance3, beyond the visible technological and material world. However, it is interesting to note that on the one hand, real symbolism has become alien to people, and on the other hand, Merton uses Alfred North Whitehead’s point of view to argue that symbolism is an intrinsic structure of human life from which there is no escape (ibid., p. 245). As a result, modern society has produced many corrupted pseudo-symbols in place of real symbolism. Merton refers here to symbols used in politics, the military, and business, such as flags for countries and trademarks for goods. These symbols serve to identify people with a certain thing or situation, but they deprive them of their real identity. In mass societies and mass movements, these pseudo-symbols undoubtedly increase the importance and value of the things they symbolize. In some totalitarian or pathological situations, political symbols can oppress the conscience and darken the mind, leading to a collective of evils (ibid., pp. 243, 247). The desecration of symbols means that there is no longer a specific center. It is as if point A on the circumference of a circle points to B, B points to C, and C points to A, like a circle of references without end, but the common center of points A, B, and C of the circle is forgotten (ibid., p. 255). According to Merton, it is clear that true ‘symbolism’ is epistemologically primary and first, while the ‘indicative sign’ is secondary and insufficient. However, in modern society, ‘symbolism’ has disappeared, leaving the ‘indicative sign–communication’ approach as the only way to know reality. The result of this is that we no longer have a holistic wisdom of nature and man, and that inherently poetic, philosophical, or even religious superabundance is replaced by the cold and icy things of science, technology, and matter.

Merton also points out that the degeneration of ‘symbolism’ into ‘indicative signs’ in the last two or three centuries cannot be attributed exclusively to secularization and atheism. On the contrary, it began with the religions themselves. When religious traditions began to lose their contemplative life and wisdom, ‘symbolism’ lost its own meaning and ceased to point to the center (ibid., pp. 251, 255). In his essay, Merton proposes a restoration of the vision of ‘symbolism’ that is consistent with his appeal in the treatment of the idea of natural contemplation:

Traditionally, the value of the symbol is precisely in its apparent uselessness as a means of simple communication. Because it is not an efficient mode of communicating information, the symbol can achieve a higher purpose, the purpose of going beyond practicality and purpose, beyond cause and effect. Instead of establishing a new contact by a meeting of minds in the sharing of news, the symbol tells nothing new: it revives our awareness of what we already know, but deepens that awareness. What is “new” in the symbol is the ever new discovery of a new depth and a new actuality in what IS and always has been…The function of the symbol is to manifest a union that already exists but is not fully realized. The symbol awakens awareness, or restores it. Therefore, it aims not at communication but at communion. Communion is the awareness of participation in an ontological or religious reality … The purpose of the symbol, if it can be said to have a “purpose;’ is not to increase the quantity of our knowledge and information but to deepen and enrich the quality of life itself by bringing man into communion with the mysterious sources of vitality and meaning, of creativity, love, and truth, to which he cannot have direct access by means of science and technique.

(ibid., pp. 249–50)

The symbol points to a communion based above all on the vertical in-and-beyond structure of analogy of being, in which the symbol is always approaching the source of the mystery, in a perpetual rhythmic movement. In the symbolic view, we live as a ‘free-floating existence’ (Merton 1975, p. 308) suspended in the middle of an in-and-beyond structure that is always in a state of adventure without dependency on a secure idea given by any social (including religious) system. This suspended state means that the creaturely being, as a symbol, which is an analogue of the (ever) greater and incomprehensible mystery of God, is a rhythmic mystery that cannot be fixed or conceptually grasped.

In the above two sections, we can find that by discussing the structure of the ontological analogy of a creator ‘in-and-beyond’ creation implied by natural contemplation, as well as the dynamic movement of creation itself towards the transcendent in symbolism, Merton avoids the two metaphysical extremes common to modern society: one regards God as a ‘process/activity of becoming’ (Merton 1985, pp. 8–9) and then proceeds towards pantheism; one regards God as a static objectified pure Being and then proceeds to onto-theology (which means to objectify or determine the being of God or put God within the creature’s grasp). Merton’s attempts to steer between the two extremes by recovering the cosmological vision of the participatory relationship between the divine and the creature is also expressed in his last work Inner Experience: Notes on Contemplation:

A certain cultural and spiritual atmosphere favors the secret and spontaneous development of the inner self. The ancient cultural traditions, both of the East and of the West, having a religious and sapiential nature, favored the interior life, indeed transmitted certain common materials in the form of archetypal symbols, liturgical notes, art, poetry, philosophy, and myth, which nourished the inner self from childhood to maturity…Unfortunately such a cultural setting no longer exists in the West or is no longer common property. It is something that has to be laboriously recovered by an educated and enlightened minority.

(Merton 2003, p. 7)

Whether or not Merton considered himself to be one of an enlightened minority, he did indicate in many of his later lectures and writings an effort to revitalize this ancient Western cultural tradition. The restoration of ‘natural contemplation’ and sapiential vision, which is aware of the inner participatory relationship between God and creation, were the hidden context of Merton’s later thought. This became the theological presupposition and foundation of his engagement in inter-religious dialogue.

4. Metaphysical Intuition as Non-Dualistic Structure of Consciousness: A Religious Dialogue Approach

In his later years, Merton wrote a number of works related to the Zen–Tao, which shows his consistent theological reflection in a different field. In Zen and the Birds of Appetite (Merton 1968) and Mystics and the Zen Masters (Merton 1967), Merton’s dialogue with Zen begins with a clarification of the ‘misunderstandings’ on both sides that results from an unequal comparison of Christianity and Buddhism. Merton points out that the diminished and distorted type of Christian experience is often compared to the Zen experience in its purity, and that this is as meaningless as comparing the Christian philosophy and theology on their highest and most sophisticated level with the myths of a popular and decadent Buddhism (Merton 1968, p. 41). Specifically, Merton criticizes the attempts to compare the pantheistic or onto-theological form of Christianity with Buddhism, which labels Buddhism as ‘pantheism’, ‘quietism’, ‘Pelagianism’, etc. (ibid., p. 35). This kind of unequal comparison often stagnates the dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity, making it difficult to move towards true mutual understanding and transformation. Therefore, Merton elaborates on the respective ‘misunderstandings’, especially the popular misunderstanding of Zen among Western Christians, and criticizes the two extremes mentioned above (the pantheistic form and the onto-theological form of Christianity), so as to suggest a common ground for religious dialogue. This foundation is a dynamic metaphysical structure based on the transcendent in-and-beyond the immanent, which is embedded in human consciousness.

Meanwhile, let us remind ourselves that another, metaphysical, consciousness is still available to modern man. It starts not from the thinking and self-aware subject but from Being, ontologically seen to be beyond and prior to the subject–object division. Underlying the subjective experience of the individual self there is an immediate experience of Being. This is totally different from an experience of self-consciousness. It is completely nonobjective. It has in it none of the split and alienation that occurs when the subject becomes aware of itself as a quasi-object. The consciousness of Being is an immediate experience that goes beyond reflexive awareness. It is not ‘consciousness of’ but pure consciousness, in which the subject as such ‘disappears’ … The metaphysical intuition of Being is an intuition of a ground of openness, indeed of a kind of ontological openness and an infinite generosity which communicates itself to everything that is. “The good is diffusive of itself,” or “God is love.” Openness is not something to be acquired, but a radical gift that has been lost and must be recovered (though it is still in principle ‘there’ in the roots of our created being). This is more or less metaphysical language, but there is also a non-metaphysical way of stating this. It does not consider God either as Immanent or as Transcendent but as grace and presence, hence neither as a ‘Center’ imagined somewhere ‘out there’ nor ‘within ourselves.’ It encounters him not as Being but as Freedom and Love. I would say from the outset that the important thing is not to oppose this gracious and prophetic concept to the metaphysical and mystical idea of union with God, but to show where the two ideas really seek to express the same kind of consciousness or at least to approach it, in varying ways.

(ibid., pp. 23–25)

This metaphysics, forgotten by modern Westerners in Merton’s view, is the metaphysics of the ‘act of Being’, i.e., God as pure actuality (Merton 1985, p. 26). This does not compromise God as an ‘activity of becoming’ (ibid., pp. 8–9), but rather reveals the fact of God’s mysterious presence and action in the world, which is an existential action of God’s communication and sharing of Himself (ibid., pp. 9–10). In the above passage, Merton attempts to combine metaphysical language with mystical (experiential) language. He repeatedly uses the paradoxical expressions of ‘metaphysical intuition’, or ‘metaphysical experience’, or ‘transcendent experience’ (Merton 1968, p. 71) to refer to the ‘act of Being’. He argues that ‘metaphysical intuition’ does not fundamentally take the human subject as the starting point, nor does it presuppose a metaphysical dichotomy between the supernatural and the natural, but rather, it takes the divine, or metaphysical Being, as the starting point for the comprehension of everything. That is to say, the world and the human being can only be comprehended in God’s participatory action in-and-beyond the creaturely being. All creatures are the result of the presence of divine wisdom, and there is no realm of the world that is separate from God. The world and mankind are by their very nature divine symbols of the presence of the divine. This dynamic metaphysics beyond and prior to the subject–object division corresponds to the non-dual consciousness inherent in human being, which is the very foundation for the arising of subjective consciousness. The pure original consciousness is the state in which a human being opens himself completely to the divine as a symbol in the in-and-beyond structure of analogy of being. This openness or pure consciousness is an innate gift that has been lost and must be recovered. Therefore, ‘metaphysical intuition’ is in fact the metaphysical Being experiencing Himself in us, or we can say that one is experiencing from ‘within Himself’ as well as from ‘within myself’ (ibid., p. 71). Metaphysical intuition requires one to let go of the ‘personal ego’/‘experiential ego’ and ultimately discover the ‘transcendent I’ within ‘Him’. The non-dual dynamic movement of this metaphysical intuition is the concrete practice and expression of the human being as a symbol/sacrament within the structure of God’s in-and-beyond creation.

This practice of ‘letting go of the empirical self to connect with the transcendent self’ reveals a certain analogy between Christianity and Zen in terms of metaphysical intuition. Both Christianity and Zen criticize the approach of seeking the transcendent from the subject ego and claim the experience of the fundamental transformation of the ‘empirical ego’, in which the ‘no-self’/’emptying of the self’ becomes the locus of metaphysical intuition. Merton points out that the transcendent experience for the Christian is participation in the ‘mind of Christ’. The dynamic process of emptying and transcending the ego is the transformation of the consciousness in Christ, as Christ emptied Himself and became obedient unto death, and therefore God highly exalted Him. This transformation of self is the emptying out of the habit of understanding reality from the perspective of ‘ego’, so that the light and glory of God, the infinite reality of His presence and love, can be manifested and shine through. In Buddhism, the development of the highest consciousness is likewise the radical emptying of the individual ego to become identified with the enlightened Buddha. Merton points out: “The Zen intuition seeks to awaken a direct metaphysical consciousness beyond empirical, reflecting, knowing, willing and talking ego, this awareness must be immediately present to itself and not mediated by either conceptual or reflexive or imaginative knowledge” (ibid., p. 49). Additionally, Nirvana, often misunderstood in the West as the goal of Zen practice, is “not the consciousness of an ego that is aware of itself as having crossed over to ‘the other shore’, but the Absolute Ground-Consciousness of Void, in which there are no shores” (ibid., p. 76). However, in Merton’s view, Nirvana is not only perfect consciousness but also perfect compassion. It can be regarded as the experience of love, not as an emotion or a feeling, but as the wide openness of Being itself, as well as the realization that pure Being is infinite giving, or that absolute emptiness is absolute compassion (ibid., pp. 79, 84, 86). This compassion is the attempt to heal the fragmentation and the brokenness of illusion, to find wholeness in Nirvana, in the manifestation of Being, in the illumination of prajna/wisdom. Therefore, Nirvana is to be found in the midst of the world around us, not somewhere else, and enlightenment is not to be attained by fleeing from the world, by rejecting it, but by a real understanding of the value of it in the emptying of the self (ibid., pp. 87–88). From Merton’s analysis, both Christianity and Buddhism seek to empty the ego and enter into a dynamic state of non-dualistic consciousness. In Christianity, this is based on the manifestation of God in-and-beyond creation structure, in which one experiences transformation back into the original harmonious relationship with God in Christ. In Buddhism, it is to blast out all the preconceptions and to destroy the specious ‘reality’ in our minds so that everything is illuminated. Therefore, Merton concludes: “the Buddhist enters into the self emptying and enlightenment of Buddha as the Christian enters into the self-emptying (crucifixion) and glorification (resurrection and ascension) of Christ” (ibid., p. 76).

If we understand that both Merton and Suzuki were seeking a ‘metaphysical intuition’ that transcends the level of ‘empirical ego’, then the common practice of labeling Buddhism with ‘self-power’ and Christianity with ‘other-power’ is no more than a misunderstanding. For such a distinction implies a dualism that separates the transcendent from the world, a mindset that both Buddhism and Christianity wish to transcend. Just as Buddhist enlightenment is the illumination of the wisdom of prajna in the locus of ‘no-self’ and every moment of meditation is penetrated with the wisdom of prajna, so also the grace of Christ is not only imposed on man from the exterior but permeates within every action of ‘emptying of the self’. Thus, at the level of metaphysical intuition, both Buddhism and Christianity engage in the act of Being, and both seek to characterize the rhythmic movement of the suspended middle between the transcendent/‘the other shore’ and the immanent/‘this shore’.

Merton’s engagement in religious dialogue is not primarily concerned with horizontal dialogue between religions. He regards religious syncreticism (where the importance of revelation is readily denied) and an exclusivist apologetic mentality (where God’s revelation is fixed or objectified to the exclusion of other religions) as two great sins of religious dialogue (Scruggs 2011, p. 412) which arise from the premise of juxtaposing religions horizontally. Merton’s engagement in inter-religious dialogue is premised on a dynamic theology of God’s in-and-beyond creation, which provides an important foundation for his dialogue; likewise, the aim of inter-religious dialogue is the transformation of the self at the vertical level, that is, a return to the inner depths of one’s own tradition through the reminders of the other religions. In Merton’s view, inter-religious dialogue can only begin in the context of an inner transformation of the life experience, and it can only go further in the context of a dynamic participatory relationship between God and creation implied in natural contemplation/symbolic theology.

5. Conclusions

From the above discussion we can conclude that Merton’s later works demonstrate a consistent concern with recovering a dynamic metaphysics/theology over various discourses. By returning to patristic sources, Merton proposes a participatory and dynamic relationship of the Creator in-and-beyond creation, in which the structure of the analogy of Being implied corrects the dualist tendency of the mainstream neo-scholastic theology of the pre-Vatican II Church. Thereby, he attempts to bridge the split between mysticism and theology in a monastic context and points out that contemplation must be practiced within the cosmic vision of God’s creation. In the face of the decline of Catholicism and its influence on the process of secularization, Merton criticizes the ‘indicative sign’ method of knowing reality in modern society and reaffirms the transcendental significance of the world through the epistemology of symbolism. Based on the structure of analogy and symbolism, Merton points to the created world as a free-floating existence, a state of being that is unfixed but always approaching the transcendent. These have become an important basis for his engagement in inter-religious dialogue. In his dialogue with Zen, Merton attempts to combine the dynamic metaphysical structure with mystical experience and proposes that metaphysical intuition is a non-dualistic consciousness which can be analogical to Zen’s highest awareness. Merton’s practice of inter-religious dialogue ultimately feeds back into his own tradition. The incarnation and the cross of Christ are by no means merely dogmatic and propositional revelations, nor are they irrelevant stories in modernist theology. Rather, it is an event that gives Christians a new awareness of the relationship between life, others, and the world (Merton 1968, p. 51), which is the foundation for the complete transformation of the self into the divine symbol of Christ.

Merton lived at a time when Catholicism was facing the intellectual, political, and cultural challenges of the modern world, which prompted many theologians to make efforts to respond. Among the many figures and endeavors, Merton was not a brilliant systematic theologian, as Przywara was, who articulated the analogy of being as a metaphysical principle of Catholic thought and engaged in modern philosophy, especially phenomenology, to explain how philosophy and culture intrinsically and ultimately demand a religious answer. However, Merton is rooted in his own monastic experience, exploring and responding to problems in his monastic context, and regarding himself as a pilgrim always on a journey towards the transcendent.